Do you believe in evolution?

[IH]

Do you know what wifom is? Pretty much it's something that has so much of an equal chance that it could go either way.

So you just supported that it's entirely possible.

[TheNinthLayer]

no I said he supports that it could go either way.

-Ninth

[IH]

Adele is a she.

[TheNinthLayer]

Way to dodge the fact that you just got owned.
'
-Ninth

[IH]

Nah

I still think you misused Wifom to be honest, I'll have to go back and look.

Probably the person closest to using wifom, was me, when you ridiculed people talking about Gravity being false.

[Adele]

What'd you put in brackets again?

Anyway you're defending people that don't believe in gravity (I'm sure you could find "scientists" that believe in dragonkin and things like that) more or less for the sake of doubt, so basically in mafiascum terms your argument is based on wifom.

-Ninth

1. In brackets, directly after saying that some scientists take issue with the theory of gravity, I clarified what I meant by that - specifically the Newtonian and Einsteinian explanations.

2. By "scientists" I mean "scientists" - qualified individuals who are recognised by the scientific community as authorities in that particular area. Superstring theorists and all sorts of other things that I'm not an authourity on, but recognise that this is an ongoing area of scientific inquiry.

[50 pounds of bread]

I'm a sociology major. I can rant and rave about social theory and internalization and blah blah, but that will mean nothing to any of you, because you all aren't sociology majors (NB: I sound like Mills and math majors; how peculiar).

So let's go through this step by step. WIFOM. What does it mean. How does it work. Can anything be WIFOM? If WIFOM applies to an argument, what does it mean then? Is the argument not valid? These questions and more will be answered in this brief, concise essay.

WIFOM, or "Wine In Front Of Me" comes from the hilarious movie "The Princess Bride." In Mafia, it refers to a situation when people debate whether or not scum would act a certain way; it's scummy to support the lynch of a townie, for instance, but that's so obviously scummy, no scum would do it! But then we'd think "yes, scum wouldn't support it! ...or would they?!". We do the gymnastics back and forth, up and down, debating whether scum would or wouldn't do something, and, according to reason, we get nowhere but frustrated and in tears. The wiki indicates that it is a popular scum ploy to distract the town, but is it really?

In practice, from some of the earliest Mafia games here on SA, posters have been very wary of WIFOM arguments. My first game was Mafia 3, way back in April, and as scum in that game, I and others, all of them townies, were able to help diffuse many arguments by citing WIFOM and washing the argument away. Even back then, people were aware, almost frightened, by the phrase WIFOM. And so, WIFOM became a dirty word, and all players feared having their arguments destroyed by the dreaded WIFOM.

So in practice here on the forums, because the wiki stated that WIFOM was a popular scum strategy, it in turn became the bane and burden of all players equally; nobody would dare argue against WIFOM, and any argument that could be WIFOM was given WIFOM warnings, and largely dismissed even by the posters that made them. So in the minds of most every player here on the forums, WIFOM is seen as this catch-all word for an evil argument only used by scum, but in truth it's never used seriously by anybody.

Except me, because that's how I roll.

WIFOM stems from the ultimately from the fear that whenever we make assumptions about another player's actions, that our assumptions, being arbitrary and somewhat baseless, will be wrong. If we knew exactly what scum were thinking, then of course there would be no need for WIFOM, because we'd already know. But we cannot; and unfortunately, any effort towards that is seen as a waste of time. But let us think about it for a moment: we all instinctually have an idea about how certain players would (or should) act under certain circumstances. We say "well, scum don't want to draw attention to themselves; docs lay low; cops participate, but only vote for people they've investigated; etc.". We have conceptions internalized about how people act, and when people violate these conceptions, they are seen as "bad players," and we ridicule them. But in truth, are not these conceptions as well just as baseless as any other conception of a player's actions? Unless we know the inner workings of the target player, we of course have no idea why they do what they do, act like they act, say what they say, and so forth. We may say "well it's logical to act in XYZ fashion, and I, being Logical Man, only do things logically!". But we don't. None of us act truly in a logical fashion, because even our conceptions of logic are largely based off of our assumptions about the world around us, and how people work. So ultimately, any assumption we make about how a character "should" and "shouldn't" act is baseless and arbitrary. And therefore, if it is largely subjective, then we risk being seriously wrong.

So why then do people use WIFOM? Why is it that ultimately everything is arbitrary, but the very minute people try and form an argument about those assumptions, it's considered absolutely evil? Because whenever an argument agrees with our assumptions and conceptions about how the world works, we say that argument makes sense, and whenever it doesn't, it's because that argument is stupid and wrong. There is no logical basis to it, there isn't some objective standard we can judge arguments about a person's actions and abilities. Debates in Mafia become ultimately a matter of interpretation, and consensus. If everyone (or at least enough for a lynch) agree over an interpretation of a certain player, then that player is seen as a "good candidate for a lynch," even though fundamentally it is arbitrary and has the potential to be very, very wrong.

The only type of "evidence" that can be levied against another player is evidence that is cop-collected and card-flipped. That is the only evidence that is 100% absolutely accurate (even if the cop is insane, or a player is a death miller, the information is still accurate, just not true). Any other type of evidence (a persons actions, their voting histories, what they've said, who "buddied" with them, etc.) is ultimately based off of an assumption and a leap of faith. So, fundamentally, unless every single one of us wants to wait around for cardflips and cop investigations (if we even have a cop in this setup), we need to make arguments that are arbitrary and have the potential to be inaccurate. That is to say, in order to play the game, every single one of us must necessarily make WIFOM arguments.

"But then, that sucks! Why is it that we have to make WIFOM arguments in order to play? I just wanna win each time and never make mistakes. "

Yep, I suppose it does suck, kinda. It just requires more critical thinking. We need to stop and try and imagine if a player legitimately could be acting in a way that we call "scummy" if they are actually town. Since there is no objective rubric for judging other players as "more" and "less" scummy, if a player is town, we can call them "Scummy McScumerson" all we want, if they are town, then we are wrong. Not them for acting that way, because there is no way for a person to deliberately act "scummy" in any objective sense. But we are the wrong ones.

We will be wrong. So far at least there has not been one game of Mafia, ever, where townies en masse never made any single mistake. Even the "flawless" games that occasionally happen on the IRC, those are only because, quite frankly, everyone got really lucky and guessed just the right people to kill./protect/whatever. So we'll make mistakes. We need to remove this fear of being wrong, and (more importantly) the fear of being lynched if we are wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, and in a game this large, with only one scum, I reckon everyone is going to make many mistakes before we finally find out who Balkoth is.

Please don't vote for me because I "use WIFOM arguments." Because as I believe I have just proven, concisely and strongly, every argument is ultimately victim to the WIFOM category. We can debate back and forth, "If Ecco were scum, he'd never do this!" "What? That's just what she wants us to think!" "That's stupid!" "You're stupid!". But ultimately we need to come to a mutual agreement about how certain players act, how certain roles should act, and we shouldn't feel scared if we are incorrect.
advertisement

My argument for my defense is the same it always has been: in a game this large, with this many players, Balkoth does not want to make himself known to the world. Not just because we'll find him easily, but because he risks getting recruited. I happen to know that there are certain ways, if a Lord tries to recruit Balkoth, that the Lord will run away successfully and survive to tell not only who he tried to recruit, but that the person is Balkoth himself! The more active and vocal a player is, the more likely they are to be in the public's consciousness, and the more likely they are not only to be voted for, but also to be recruited at night. This in no way is what Balkoth is seeking. I am firmly of the opinion that Balkoth simply wouldn't do what I've been doing, and I ask you to look inside and realize that I am right. You can admit this grudgingly, fine, but everyone voted for me because I've been acting "soooo scummy." Did it ever possible occur to you that I've been acting that way for a reason? It's clearly deliberate -- all who have played games with me before know I'm acting oddly. I've been scum before, I've been town before, I've been cop, and I was once Neo, but I've never once acted the way I have now. If you all genuinely care, I'll tell you, but I hope you realize by now that not only am I most likely town, but that I've been acting like I have for a damn good reason. I don't wish to share it, because I don't want Balkoth to know more than he does, but just trust me on this. You may say "you haven't earned the trust ", but how haven't I eared it? By being snarky, obnoxious, perhaps a bit annoying? But as I hope I have just shown you, it's because something very peculiar is happening; saying "trust me" in the sense of "at the very least don't lynch me today" should be enough.

So yeah, that's why I hate WIFOM. People here see WIFOM and they run away in fear; I embrace it. I rejoice that we have the ability to determine, simply with our minds, how people are, and what they do. If you're new to the game, then your "scumdar" is probably weaker than more of the experienced ones, but keep trying and it'll come to you. But I reiterate this, because it is important: WIFOM is not a reasonable critique of an argument. To say "well that's WIFOM" and to wipe the argument away is not being a good player; it's being a lazy player. Get dirty. Risk being wrong. Jump forward, make suspicions, and see how players act. Those are the ingredients to a fun game."

[IH]

Actually, she never said it wasn't real, she said there were scientist who disagreed with the

Theory

of Gravity. Not that Gravity was false. That how it works is possibly false.

[Aisar]

Actually, she never said it wasn't real, she said there were scientist who disagreed with the

Theory

of Gravity. Not that Gravity was false. That how it works is possibly false.

I can't believe you believe in gravity

[TheNinthLayer]

1. Those are parentheses.

2. Dragonkin scientists are respected too among people that don't know gravity is real.

-Ninth

[waar]

If God had a name what would it be?
And would you call it to his face?
If you were faced with him
In all his glory
What would you ask if you had just one question?

*And yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
Yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah

What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Trying to make his way home

If God had a face what would it look like?
And would you want to see
If seeing meant that
you would have to believe
in things like heaven and in Jesus and the saints
and all the prophets (*)

Trying to make his way home
Back up to heaven all alone
Nobody calling on the phone
'cept for the Pope maybe in Rome(*)

Just trying to make his way home
Like a holy rolling stone
Back up to heaven all alone
Just trying to make his way home
Nobody calling on the phone
'cept for the Pope maybe in Rome

[Adele]

Oh bloody hell. What's all that got to do with anything? Way to cut-and-paste to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. WIFOM is not relevant to this discussion.

If TNL believes he has found a flaw in my reasoning, he should be able to demonstrate it without converting it to mafia terms; philosophical debate got by just fine prior to mafia. WIFOM's a famously vague term in any case. It serves a functional job in-game, but otherwise? Say what you mean.

-->simulpost edit:
1. Yes, you call them parentheses in the US. We call them brackets in the UK. This is an international site. Roll with it.
2. What

is

dragonkin? I'm talking about the scientific community at large; peer-reviewed journals.

You keep refusing to define your terms, explain your points. You willfully misunderstand others to present a straw man for you to demolish, but if others cannot understand your use of jargon and "arguments" that are not arguments, then they are at fault.

C-. Must Try Harder

[50 pounds of bread]

Do you know what wifom is? Pretty much it's something that has so much of an equal chance that it could go either way.

So you just supported that it's entirely possible.

This guy asked if I knew what WIFOM was.

[TheNinthLayer]

Famously vague just like your arguments.

You keep flip-flopping on the issue of gravity when clearly we are rooted on the ground are we not? See you got called out on it and now you're backpedaling.

Also you're arguing for the sake of arguing, you're probably a 9/11 truther too, FIGHT THE POWER RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE don't believe what the authority tells you right?

-Ninth

[Aisar]

Oh bloody hell. What's all that got to do with anything? Way to cut-and-paste to teach your grandmother to suck eggs. WIFOM is not relevant to this discussion.

If TNL believes he has found a flaw in my reasoning, he should be able to demonstrate it without converting it to mafia terms; philosophical debate got by just fine prior to mafia. WIFOM's a famously vague term in any case. It serves a functional job in-game, but otherwise? Say what you mean.

-->simulpost edit:
1. Yes, you call them parentheses in the US. We call them brackets in the UK. This is an international site. Roll with it.
2. What

is

dragonkin? I'm talking about the scientific community at large; peer-reviewed journals.

You keep refusing to define your terms, explain your points. You willfully misunderstand others to present a straw man for you to demolish, but if others cannot understand your use of jargon and "arguments" that are not arguments, then they are at fault.

C-. Must Try Harder

Otherkin is the term for a group of people who consider themselves non-human or having a connection to a mythical archetype in some way, usually believing to be mythological or legendary creatures. Common creatures to which Otherkin claim some connection include angels, demons, dragons, elves, fairies, lycanthropes, and extra-terrestrials.[1] The otherkin community grew out of the elven online community of the early-to-mid-1990s, with the earliest recorded use of the term otherkin appearing in early 1996.[2] Outside of their own subculture, otherkin beliefs are often met with controversy.[3] According to diagnosis criteria put forth in the DSM IV and the ICD, the belief that one is an animal or can be turned into an animal may qualify as a delusional disorder[citation needed], a delusion of varying severity and significance.

[50 pounds of bread]

Actually, she never said it wasn't real, she said there were scientist who disagreed with the

Theory

of Gravity. Not that Gravity was false. That how it works is possibly false.

Scientific theory is different than other kinds of theories.

In science, theories are the closest it can get to truth.

[Adele]

he asked if TNL knew what WIFOM is. He was asking him to justify his accusation towards me.

He was not asking you to post an extensive analysis of the etymology and value of wifom. If you posted it to get attention, that's ok; but it's not a public service, and it was off-topic.

You keep flip-flopping on the issue of gravity when clearly we are rooted on the ground are we not? See you got called out on it and now you're backpedaling.

I'm not flip-flopping in the least. Is that what you think the "theory of gravity" is? That stuff has weight?
That's not a theory, but an observed fact. The theories of gravity relate to the hows and whys.

If alasdair agrees with your apparent belief of what the "theory of gravity" means, then it wasn't a fitting analogy; genes are an observed fact, but evolution is a theory based on this and many other observed facts. If he agrees with mine, then he's wrong to say that those who question it are necessarily silly, stupid or ignorant.

[50 pounds of bread]

he asked if TNL knew what WIFOM is. He was asking him to justify his accusation towards me.

He was not asking you to post an extensive analysis of the etymology and value of wifom. If you posted it to get attention, that's ok; but it's not a public service, and it was off-topic.

You keep flip-flopping on the issue of gravity when clearly we are rooted on the ground are we not? See you got called out on it and now you're backpedaling.

I'm not flip-flopping in the least. Is that what you think the "theory of gravity" is? That stuff has weight?
That's not a theory, but an observed fact. The theories of gravity relate to the hows and whys.

If alasdair agrees with your apparent belief of what the "theory of gravity" means, then it wasn't a fitting analogy; genes are an observed fact, but evolution is a theory based on this and many other observed facts. If he agrees with mine, then he's wrong to say that those who question it are necessarily silly, stupid or ignorant.

The pope says you are wrong, explain yourself.

[TheNinthLayer]

Hey those are your words not mine, you refuted the theory or gravity. Are you living in space or something because seriously everyone knows gravity is real, just like everyone knows evolution is false. There's no empirical evidence to demonstrate the contrary.

Also are are a 9/11 truther aren't you. ZACH DE LA ROCHA 4EVER

-Ninth

[Adele]

The pope and I disagree on a multitude of topics.

The Vatican, however, does not claim that the pope is completely infallible.

Hey those are your words not mine, you refuted the theory or gravity. Are you living in space or something because seriously everyone knows gravity is real, just like everyone knows evolution is false. There's no empirical evidence to demonstrate the contrary.

1. When you say I refuted the theory of gravity, you are saying I successfully debunked it. When you use words you don't know the meaning of, unfortunately you'll sometimes say the opposite of what you'd like to.
2. Yes, I know that there exists and attraction between bodies of mass. I have never said otherwise
3. The fact that you refer specifically to empirical evidence underlines my point. Are we discussing the fact of gravity or any one of the theories of gravity? How does gravity exist? Why? Is it a force? A manifestation of curvature in space-time? It's very simple:
Fact of Gravity = True
Any given Theory of Gravity = Possibly False

Hope that helps.

[Aisar]

Maybe you guys should make a thread about the theory of gravity We're all trying to talk about Evolution here

[Adele]

No, you weren't; this thread was long dead before alasdair necro'd it.

'sides, in GD derailings are semi-acceptable

[TheNinthLayer]

1. You're arguing semantics because you don't have a real argument, just like you did with brackets vs. parentheses.

2. How do you know? Did somebody tell you? You shouldn't believe in things people tell you, they lie all the time!

3. See you're backpedaling, now you're agreeing with gravity again.

Also you didn't answer my point about you being a 9/11 truther. Why are you trying to dodge the question p.s. KILLING IN THE NAME OF

Hope this helps.

-Ninth

[Aisar]

No, you weren't; this thread was long dead before alasdair necro'd it.

'sides, in GD derailings are semi-acceptable

What do you mean by semi-acceptable??? Things are acceptable or not.

[TheNinthLayer]

No, you weren't; this thread was long dead before alasdair necro'd it.

'sides, in GD derailings are semi-acceptable

What do you mean by semi-acceptable??? Things are acceptable or not.

See she is backpedaling and flip-flopping on issues, and then fence-sitting so she doesn't have to argue a position.

-Ninth